NationStates Jolt Archive

Many of us here are familiar with the case of Genarlow Wilson, a man who was convicted of aggrevated child molestation because, at the age of 17, he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl. He has served 2 years of a 10 year sentence, which will also require sex offender registration

Following his case, the Georgia legislature amended the law to include a "romeo and juliet" provision, meaning that teens who engaged in consensual sex only committed a misdemeanor, carrying no more than a year in prison and no sex offender registration, if they were both minors, both within a certain ages of each other, and the sexual act was consensual (as was the case in Wilson's matter). The legislature, however, declined to make the law retroactive, which would have freed Wilson.

Well:

The Georgia Supreme Court on Friday ordered that Genarlow Wilson be released from prison, ruling 4-3 that his sentence for a teen sex conviction was cruel and unusual punishment.

...

The Georgia high court upheld the decision of the Monroe County judge. In a 48-page opinion, the court said the "severe" punishment Wilson received and his mandated sex offender registration make "no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment."

In the decision, Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote that changes in the law "represent a seismic shift in the legislature's view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants."

"Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity, we must acknowledge that Wilson's crime does not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children," the court's majority found.

"For the law to punish Wilson as it would an adult, with the extraordinarily harsh punishment of 10 years in prison without the possibility of probation or parole, appears to be grossly disproportionate to his crime," the majority opinion concluded.



Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html)

So, comments? Thoughts? Good decision? Bad?

Activist judges! Bad bad bad!

Hooray! Georgia makes progress!

Good Decision by the Supreme Court Judge.

It's about damn time. It was apparently a 4-3 decision though - close. I'll have to look up who voted which way when I get the chance. Doesn't surprise me in the least that Sears was one of the 4, though.

As a clarification, IIRC, the law was amended such that consensual oral sex between teens was a misdemeanor. There already was a "Romeo and Juliet" provision in the law, but it applied only to vaginal sex.

As a clarification, IIRC, the law was amended such that consensual oral sex between teens was a misdemeanor. There already was a "Romeo and Juliet" provision in the law, but it applied only to vaginal sex.

I was going off memory there. Thanks for the clarification, my mistake.

Oh come on, this is a decision for the legislature to make! If they had wanted to make this retroactive, they would have...the power was clearly in their hands to do so. The courts are not supposed to use changes in the law to justify overturning convictions that preceeded that change in the law...once again because had the legislature WANTED the new law to be taken into such account, they would have allowed that by declaring it to be retroactive.

"Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity..."

it does?

Oh come on, this is a decision for the legislature to make! If they had wanted to make this retroactive, they would have...the power was clearly in their hands to do so. The courts are not supposed to use changes in the law to justify overturning convictions that preceeded that change in the law...once again because had the legislature WANTED the new law to be taken into such account, they would have allowed that by declaring it to be retroactive.

feh, stop trying to stir up controversy :p Courts are supposed to change the law when the law is contrary to higher authority, IE the united states constitution. While the legislature's change of the penalty does not, in and of itself, create the inference that the sentence is cruel and unusual, the legislature's willingness to reduce the sentence does lend strength to that positionl

but the boy is still listed as a sex offender and I doubt will receive any compensation (also I'm very suspicious of this Romeo and Juliet rule)

how is this good :confused:

feh, stop trying to stir up controversy :p Courts are supposed to change the law when the law is contrary to higher authority, IE the united states constitution. While the legislature's change of the penalty does not, in and of itself, create the inference that the sentence is cruel and unusual, the legislature's willingness to reduce the sentence does lend strength to that positionl

It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature does not intend outcomes that are absurd or unjust...however, the modern principle of statutory interpretation gives the court immense latitude even outside a Constitutional analysis to change laws by declaring certain outcomes 'absurd' or 'unjust'. There is some claim to have an objective approach, but absurdity in particular is defined so broadly, that any claim to an actual reproducible objective legal test is laughable. The legislature had the option to make the act retroactive. It chose not to. The courts are not there to 'change' the law, they are there to interpret it. The court might not agree with the choice of the legislature in this case, but giving itself the power to make a law retroactive for all accounts and purposes through this very convoluted reasoning directly infringes on the power of the legislature.

It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature does not intend outcomes that are absurd or unjust

If that were universally true than the "no cruel and unusual" provision in the constitution would be irrelevant and superfluous. If the legislature is unrebuttably presumed to be just, then by definition they can not be cruel and unusual.

There is some claim to have an objective approach, but absurdity in particular is defined so broadly . . .

The question in american jurisprudence is not "absurd" it is "cruel and unusual". And yes, that is a very broad and highly vague term.

Which is exactly why we have the courts to interpret it.

The courts are not there to 'change' the law, they are there to interpret it.

Correct, which includes the US constitution, which is a higher authority than the georgia legislature.

The court might not agree with the choice of the legislature in this case, but giving itself the power to make a law retroactive for all accounts and purposes through this very convoluted reasoning directly infringes on the power of the legislature.

Arguably the law is not "being applied retroactively". The sentence was "cruel and unusual" regardless of whether the legislature retroactively applied the law, or even changed the law at all. If the sentece was cruel and unusual, it was cruel and unusual, regarldess of whether the legislature changed it later.

The fact that the legislature did change it merely provides an appropriate guidepost for the court.

but the boy is still listed as a sex offender

Umm...

The judge reduced the sentence to one year and said Wilson should not be put on Georgia's sex offender registry, as the old law required.

The fact that the legislature did change it merely provides an appropriate guidepost for the court.

Not to mention the fact that the only reason the legislature gave for not making it retroactive was, "ZOMG! THERE WILL BE COURT CASES! OH NOES!"

Umm...

what!? I demand this pervert but put on the list of sexual offenses so I can be bitter!

its a Friday so be gentle :p

If that were universally true than the "no cruel and unusual" provision in the constitution would be irrelevant and superfluous. If the legislature is unrebuttably presumed to be just, then by definition they can not be cruel and unusual. The presumption works in favour of interpretations which are, according to the courts 'not absurd' and 'just', rather than working as a presumption in favour of the legislature. This principle of interpretation already gives the courts wide latitude to interpret legislation as they wish. However, built into that principle are certain standards, one of which is that changes in an Act should not be taken into account unless expressly allowed for by the legislature.



The question in american jurisprudence is not "absurd" it is "cruel and unusual". And yes, that is a very broad and highly vague term.Which is exactly why we have the courts to interpret it. But I believe you are referring to the Constitutional issues brought up in this case, rather than statutory interpretation, where the standard is still 'absurdity'. Assuming that the Constitutional argument has validity, then then the issue of statutory interpretation is moot...but when taken in the context of cases where the Constitution is not invoked, the courts do need to be fettered somewhat in their exercise of judicial discretion. That means that despite the fact that a change in the act might be compelling, it nonetheless should NOT be a consideration.




Correct, which includes the US constitution, which is a higher authority than the georgia legislature. I am under the impression that the Constitutional issue was brought up only because the courts were in fact bound not to consider the change in legislation under the modern principle of intepretation. But I won't argue the outcome of that, since I do believe it to be just.



Arguably the law is not "being applied retroactively". The sentence was "cruel and unusual" regardless of whether the legislature retroactively applied the law, or even changed the law at all. If the sentece was cruel and unusual, it was cruel and unusual, regarldess of whether the legislature changed it later. Yes well...it's a compelling argument for sure. It only had to be made, however, because the legislature refused to make the law retroactive in the first place and by hook or by crook, the courts were going to do it for them.

It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature does not intend outcomes that are absurd or unjust

though it should be noted that as an empirical matter we are probably better served by assuming the opposite

I think it's a bad decision. It's not for the judicial system to incourage and approve of "romeo and juliet" situations.

Also, I'm 27 and I don't get laid. Just how much sympathy am I expected to muster for the poor little boys and girls who have wild teenage sex and get caught?

though it should be noted that as an empirical matter we are probably better served by assuming the opposite

Ha, agreed.

Ok, that's about all the effort I'm willing to put into a non-contraversial thread.

Assuming that the Constitutional argument has validity, then then the issue of statutory interpretation is moot...but when taken in the context of cases where the Constitution is not invoked, the courts do need to be fettered somewhat in their exercise of judicial discretion. That means that despite the fact that a change in the act might be compelling, it nonetheless should NOT be a consideration.

Well...yes. The reason for changing the law here was a constitutional problem. If there was no constitutional problem, but just judges who "didn't like it" then certainly they would be constrained and not allowed to change a law because they "feel like it".

In this instance they changed the law because they felt it violated a higher law.

I think it's a bad decision. It's not for the judicial system to incourage and approve of "romeo and juliet" situations.

It's not as if they're saying, "DO IT! DO IT LOTS!" In fact, it is still a crime.

It just isn't a "your life is ended right now and you can't even live at home with your family" kind of crime anymore.

Do you really think consensual oral sex between teens should result in a 10 year sentence followed by a lifetime with a scarlet letter?

Well...yes. The reason for changing the law here was a constitutional problem. If there was no constitutional problem, but just judges who "didn't like it" then certainly they would be constrained and not allowed to change a law because they "feel like it".

In this instance they changed the law because they felt it violated a higher law.
Right, no judge would change the law because they just didn't like it.

That's why they have years of experience coming up with all sorts of bullshit and yet highly compelling justifications for doing exactly that.

Do you really think consensual oral sex between teens should result in a 10 year sentence followed by a lifetime with a scarlet letter?

But it's not consentual, because they cannot legally consent.

And yes I do. I mean they could always choose to not get caught. Or to not engage in such risky behaviors. I mean really, sex is all about risk anyway. AIDS, prison, either way if you're having sex you're taking on risks that you should know about and not whine too much if you gamble and lose about.

Well done Georgia.

And yes I do. I mean they could always choose to not get caught. Or to not engage in such risky behaviors. I mean really, sex is all about risk anyway. AIDS, prison, either way if you're having sex you're taking on risks that you should know about and not whine too much if you gamble and lose about.

I really don't know how to talk to someone who thinks agreeing to oral sex should end someone's life. Sorry.

I really don't know how to talk to someone who thinks agreeing to oral sex should end someone's life. Sorry.

It's more or less the same as talking to someone who thinks prison time amounts to ending someone's life.

Good for Georgia.

It's more or less the same as talking to someone who thinks prison time amounts to ending someone's life.

Isn't that why you support the death penalty though? Because jail is so harsh you might as well kill em?

It's more or less the same as talking to someone who thinks prison time amounts to ending someone's life.

YOU try getting a job to support yourself when you are considered a dangerous felon that preys on young girls. There are people out there wo do NOT want a convicted felon working for them.

But it's not consentual, because they cannot legally consent.

And yes I do. I mean they could always choose to not get caught. Or to not engage in such risky behaviors. I mean really, sex is all about risk anyway. AIDS, prison, either way if you're having sex you're taking on risks that you should know about and not whine too much if you gamble and lose about.

Try telling that to abortain supporters. It's a gamble, right? Not that I oppose all abortains or even half of them. There are a few I'm not too crazy for.

Isn't that why you support the death penalty though? Because jail is so harsh you might as well kill em?

That's not exactly my reasoning for supporting the death penalty. Rather it's more how people can say that death penalty is barbaric, inhuman, irreversible murder - but apparently, prison sentences are civilized, humane, reversible and not in any way kidnapping. There's a disconnect here that I don't like.

Why I personally believe in the death penalty itself is actually more that I just think certain crimes merit certain punishments.

But this isn't about the death penalty.

It's more or less the same as talking to someone who thinks prison time amounts to ending someone's life.

We aren't just talking about prison time. We're talking about a felony conviction with sex offender status. That does effectively end your life. With a simple felony conviction, your chances of getting a job when you get out are tiny. With sex offender status, you can forget it. You'll be lucky if you can even find a place you're legally allowed to live, much less a job. This young man has already most likely lost his chance at a college education unless he manages one years from now, but at least he'll be able to get a job.

We aren't just talking about prison time. We're talking about a felony conviction with sex offender status. That does effectively end your life. With a simple felony conviction, your chances of getting a job when you get out are tiny. With sex offender status, you can forget it. You'll be lucky if you can even find a place you're legally allowed to live, much less a job.

I've heard this too, but I know a guy who was convicted, felony sex offender - pretty silly circumstances too if you ask me, but then I only know his side of the story - and he's not having these problems at all.

I think it depends on where you are, the society. Like I imagine he would have a much more difficult time in a more conservative and/or religious community.

The guy's obviously not a sex offender, and this is exactly the sort of thing that sex offender's lists were not designed to be for.

The mind boggles.

Oh come on, this is a decision for the legislature to make! If they had wanted to make this retroactive, they would have...the power was clearly in their hands to do so. The courts are not supposed to use changes in the law to justify overturning convictions that preceeded that change in the law...once again because had the legislature WANTED the new law to be taken into such account, they would have allowed that by declaring it to be retroactive.It stinks...

the US retarded politicians/Judges want to keep the other GenarlowWilsons in Jail..

they cant keep this GenarlowWilson in Jail.. because of all the Public awareness and Mediaexposure on this particular case.

So they decide to free this one ,in a way make it retroactive for this one but not the other ones.

That's not exactly my reasoning for supporting the death penalty. Rather it's more how people can say that death penalty is barbaric, inhuman, irreversible murder - but apparently, prison sentences are civilized, humane, reversible and not in any way kidnapping. There's a disconnect here that I don't like.

Why I personally believe in the death penalty itself is actually more that I just think certain crimes merit certain punishments. I agree with this..




But... I cannot agree with all the other things you are posting..

"Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity..."

it does?

I keep asking for proof why this is a "legitimate state interest" I never get any.

I keep asking for proof why this is a "legitimate state interest" I never get any.

i haven't seen an argument for it either. i could easily buy that there is a legitimate community/state interest in preventing exploitation and stopping predators. but i'm not seeing much beyond that, which is where all of your standard cases of 'premature' sex will be.

anyone care to help us out here?

i haven't seen an argument for it either. i could easily buy that there is a legitimate community/state interest in preventing exploitation and stopping predators. but i'm not seeing much beyond that, which is where all of your standard cases of 'premature' sex will be.

anyone care to help us out here?

devil's advocate?

younger teens, being on average less intellectually and emotionally mature than oder individuals are probably less likely to consider the risks of sex, and use appropriate protection/contraception. Ergo the risk of accidental/unwanted pregnancy as well as STD transmission is significantly higher in those demographics.

And the state has a pretty clear interest in trying to reduce the spread of STDs and the number of unwanted/accidental pregnancies.

Many of us here are familiar with the case of Genarlow Wilson, a man who was convicted of aggrevated child molestation because, at the age of 17, he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl. He has served 2 years of a 10 year sentence, which will also require sex offender registration

Following his case, the Georgia legislature amended the law to include a "romeo and juliet" provision, meaning that teens who engaged in consensual sex only committed a misdemeanor, carrying no more than a year in prison and no sex offender registration, if they were both minors, both within a certain ages of each other, and the sexual act was consensual (as was the case in Wilson's matter). The legislature, however, declined to make the law retroactive, which would have freed Wilson.

Well:



Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html)

So, comments? Thoughts? Good decision? Bad?

Good idea, but it needs more retroactive.

Activist judges! Bad bad bad!

Not really, if the law was written because of his conviction then it is obviously meant to have been applied retroactively.

Good idea, but it needs more retroactive.
Got a secret love in jail?

younger teens, being on average less intellectually and emotionally mature than oder individuals are probably less likely to consider the risks of sex, and use appropriate protection/contraception.

If they're not going to consider the risks, why would attaching punishment to it make a difference?

Even if you can somehow get around that... at most you could justify legally mandating safe sex for that demographic, not outright prohibition. Yeah, enforcement might be a problem--but then, that's the case already.

Not really, if the law was written because of his conviction then it is obviously meant to have been applied retroactively.

actually no, the legislature made it QUITE clear that the law was NOT meant to be applied retroactively. And, in fact, it was not.

devil's advocate?

younger teens, being on average less intellectually and emotionally mature than oder individuals are probably less likely to consider the risks of sex, and use appropriate protection/contraception. Ergo the risk of accidental/unwanted pregnancy as well as STD transmission is significantly higher in those demographics.

And the state has a pretty clear interest in trying to reduce the spread of STDs and the number of unwanted/accidental pregnancies.

not bad for a devil's advocate argument - though that's probably because it isn't an argument anyone who actually found teen sex icky and worthy of jail time would ever advocate.

in any case, the argument only works if:
1) that actually is the thing which children are being protected from, rather than from 'premature sex' itself, as seems to be indicated in the judge's quoted words.
2) this public health interest outweighs various privacy and other rights and the like retained by the people in question.
and
3) the best way to advance the state's public health interest actually is to forbid and punish certain sorts of sexual acts for minors and not the population as a whole, and not through other less intrusive methods that might be empirically shown to advance the goal more effectively.

edit:
and 4) soheran's point above doesn't hold up.

actually no, the legislature made it QUITE clear that the law was NOT meant to be applied retroactively. And, in fact, it was not.Why write the law if you don't think it is wrong that he was jailed?

Just because some people hold power doesn't mean they should be able to. *mutters*

I needs to read this properly.

Many of us here are familiar with the case of Genarlow Wilson, a man who was convicted of aggrevated child molestation because, at the age of 17, he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl. He has served 2 years of a 10 year sentence, which will also require sex offender registration

Following his case, the Georgia legislature amended the law to include a "romeo and juliet" provision, meaning that teens who engaged in consensual sex only committed a misdemeanor, carrying no more than a year in prison and no sex offender registration, if they were both minors, both within a certain ages of each other, and the sexual act was consensual (as was the case in Wilson's matter). The legislature, however, declined to make the law retroactive, which would have freed Wilson.

Well:



Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html)

So, comments? Thoughts? Good decision? Bad?
Seems to me the consensus last time we discussed this was that the State AG was a bucket-head to keep him in jail. His excuse was that he didn't want to release all the others convicted for similar offenses.

Now that the SSCoG has freed Mr. Wilson, I wonder how he's going to handle the cases he was afraid of back then?

Seems to me the consensus last time we discussed this was that the State AG was a bucket-head to keep him in jail. His excuse was that he didn't want to release all the others convicted for similar offenses.

Now that the SSCoG has freed Mr. Wilson, I wonder how he's going to handle the cases he was afraid of back then?

It seems logical that the others similarly imprisoned can appeal using this as a precedent, but I don't know a damn thing about legal stuff, so I could easily be wrong.

Seems to me the consensus last time we discussed this was that the State AG was a bucket-head to keep him in jail. His excuse was that he didn't want to release all the others convicted for similar offenses.

Now that the SSCoG has freed Mr. Wilson, I wonder how he's going to handle the cases he was afraid of back then?How is he going to handle the ones who try to appeal? slowly.. very very slowly.

A retroactive Law would set most of them (other GenarlowWilsons) free..

But as it stands now.. they are making it expensive and time consuming for them to obtain their deserved freedom.

Oh come on, this is a decision for the legislature to make! If they had wanted to make this retroactive, they would have...the power was clearly in their hands to do so. The courts are not supposed to use changes in the law to justify overturning convictions that preceeded that change in the law...once again because had the legislature WANTED the new law to be taken into such account, they would have allowed that by declaring it to be retroactive.



How is he going to handle the ones who try to appeal? slowly.. very very slowly.

A retroactive Law sets most of them (GenarlowWilsons) free..

But as it stands now.. they are making it expensive and time consuming for them to obtain their deserved freedom.

Making this (or any) law retroactive brings up the possibility of challenge in the Supreme Court. While the prohibition against ex post facto law in the US Constitution has never been incorporated to the States, it could be if the correct case came up.

Beside which, all ex post facto law is abomination.

Now where's the reparations he should get for missed opportunities?

Making this (or any) law retroactive brings up the possibility of challenge in the Supreme Court. While the prohibition against ex post facto law in the US Constitution has never been incorporated to the States, it could be if the correct case came up.

That's um...not quite right. There is a significant difference between a retroactive law and an ex post facto law. The supreme court has made it clear that a law is ex post facto when it is retroactively applied and not ameliorative-but rather disadvantageous-to the offender.

A law that retroactively gives benefit to the offender is not an ex post facto law.

Why didn't he videotape it?

That's um...not quite right. There is a significant difference between a retroactive law and an ex post facto law. The supreme court has made it clear that a law is ex post facto when it is retroactively applied and not ameliorative-but rather disadvantageous-to the offender.

A law that retroactively gives benefit to the offender is not an ex post facto law.

Fair enough. I still don't like the entire concept, though.

But it's not consentual, because they cannot legally consent.

And yes I do. I mean they could always choose to not get caught. Or to not engage in such risky behaviors. I mean really, sex is all about risk anyway. AIDS, prison, either way if you're having sex you're taking on risks that you should know about and not whine too much if you gamble and lose about.

last time I checked its pretty unlikely to get AIDS from oral sex...
I don't see why you being old and bitter ought to convict some kid for getting lucky. If they wanted to punish someone for something like this they should make them attend a sex ed class in addition to what they're already taught in school.

It's not as if they're saying, "DO IT! DO IT LOTS!" In fact, it is still a crime.

It just isn't a "your life is ended right now and you can't even live at home with your family" kind of crime anymore.

Do you really think consensual oral sex between teens should result in a 10 year sentence followed by a lifetime with a scarlet letter?

THANK YOU! That is pretty much exactly what I was trying to compose in my head, but thanks to an ear infection and vicodin, I'm not nearly so well spoken tonight.

*gives cookies to the judges*

While the prohibition against ex post facto law in the US Constitution has never been incorporated to the States, it could be if the correct case came up.What the hell are you talking about?

Article I, Section 10:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

It doesn't need to be "incorporated," it was there long before Amendment 14 even existed.

It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature does not intend outcomes that are absurd or unjust...That's true, but you're misreading the theoretical import of that principle.

As a principle of interpretation, it refers to our attempts to decipher the legislative meaning. The sense of the principle, then, is that if there are multiple readings of a statute, judges are required to read it in its best possible sense--that is, they are not to assume arbitrarily that the legislature has intended something "absurd" or "unjust" when it is possible to give the statute an alternative reading.

What the principle does NOT do is to state a priori that legislatures are somehow categorically incapable of absurdity or injustice.

In this case, the meaning of the statute is plain. The question is whether that meaning itself is just.

What the hell are you talking about?



It doesn't need to be "incorporated," it was there long before Amendment 14 even existed.

True. I'd forgotten exactly where that prohibition was.

But I should note that the Bill of Rights was in existence long before Amendment 14, too, and those have had to be incorporated (and not all of them have been).

True. I'd forgotten exactly where that prohibition was.

But I should note that the Bill of Rights was in existence long before Amendment 14, too, and those have had to be incorporated (and not all of them have been).Yes, but that's because they were not written to apply against the states.

Article I, Section 10 is explicit: "No state shall..."

Seems to me the consensus last time we discussed this was that the State AG was a bucket-head to keep him in jail. His excuse was that he didn't want to release all the others convicted for similar offenses.

Not just the AG. That was the excuse given by some of the legislators for not making the law retroactive in the first place. Look up Eric Johnson if you want a real bucket-head. *shudders at having lived in his district*

Got a secret love in jail?

Me? Loved? That's about as likely as hell freezing over.

Not just the AG. That was the excuse given by some of the legislators for not making the law retroactive in the first place. Look up Eric Johnson if you want a real bucket-head. *shudders at having lived in his district*
Funny, I knew an Eric Johnsen in high school, but it was Johnsen, not Johnson, so it couldn't be the same guy.

As I said in the thread I made, not aware of this, I'm happy with the result. A good decision :)

Sorry, posted with wrong nation:

That's true, but you're misreading the theoretical import of that principle. No, I'm really not.

As a principle of interpretation, it refers to our attempts to decipher the legislative meaning. The sense of the principle, then, is that if there are multiple readings of a statute, judges are required to read it in its best possible sense--that is, they are not to assume arbitrarily that the legislature has intended something "absurd" or "unjust" when it is possible to give the statute an alternative reading. Uh-huh.

What the principle does NOT do is to state a priori that legislatures are somehow categorically incapable of absurdity or injustice. You don't say.

In this case, the meaning of the statute is plain. The question is whether that meaning itself is just.

Sorry, not sure how you deduced that somehow I was arguing the opposite of all this from my one line.

Made my heart warm to read this on the Times web site this morning.

Sorry, not sure how you deduced that somehow I was arguing the opposite of all this from my one line.You were arguing that the court overstepped its bounds in declaring, effectively, that the legislature was unjust in refusing to apply leniency retroactively. As support for your conclusion, you offered the principle of interpretation that a legislature does not enact statutes that are absurd or unjust.

How else am I to interpret your argument except to perceive that you take the stated principle to mean that the legislature cannot be unjust?

You cite a principle of interpretation, yet interpretation is not at issue. No one disputes the meaning of the statute. How can I understand your raising of an interpretive principle in your defense except to suppose that you misunderstand its significance?

The alternative would be to suppose that you dispute the interpretation of the statute and would offer another. But you have not.

Do you disagree about the legislature's meaning? Do you dispute our understanding of their intent?

If not, leave interpretive principles aside.

good stuff, no mention of whether or not his name is staying on the sex offender register though.

good stuff, no mention of whether or not his name is staying on the sex offender register though.



The judge reduced the sentence to one year and said Wilson should not be put on Georgia's sex offender registry, as the old law required.

The Supreme Court upheld his decision, so it would appear that he will not be on the registry.

Made my heart warm to read this on the Times web site this morning.

You need to stop eating those acid-doused spicy tacos then.